Roger-Mark DeSouza Presentation.pdf
Transcript of Roger-Mark DeSouza Presentation.pdf
Scaling up and Expanding out
PHE through Resilience Framing
Roger-Mark De Souza
Woodrow Wilson Center
October 2014
Birhane Fikade, PHE Model Farmer
Daniel Nguyan, Environmental Justice
Source: Frankenberger et al, 2014
Resilience Conceptual Framework
What are Resilience Programs?
• Resilience programs integrate livelihoods, disaster risk reduction, and climate change adaptation approaches into a single framework
• Build resilience of individuals, households, communities, or higher-level systems to deal with shocks and stresses
• Focus on capacity-building (absorptive, adaptive, and transformative) which are mutually reinforcing and exist at multiple levels
Some Examples of Resilience Programs
• Mercy Corps’ micro-insurance Catastrophe Risk Organization (MiCRO) in Haiti provides insurance payouts explicitly linked to shocks
• Provides opportunity to observe the effect of shocks mediated by an intervention that is meant to enable absorptive capacity as part of enhanced resilience capacity
• Catholic Relief Services worked in Garissa County, Kenya, with the Fafi Integrated Development Association and the Relief, Reconstruction and Development Organization, to assess impact of droughts on livestock and its related effects on livelihoods
• Restoration of goat herds lost as a consequence of drought was a major focus of the project and represents an example of how strengthening absorptive capacity can lead to positive results
• CARE’s Pathways to Empowerment program works to build resilient livelihoods among women smallholder farmers
• Exemplifies how investing in human capital, with a special focus on women, is a key dimension of resilience capacity
Source: Frankenberger et al, 2014
Why Does PHE Make Sense for
Building Resilience?
Strengthen community resilience by:
• Reducing risks
• Maximizing livelihood diversification opportunities
• Creating community involvement and trust
• Improving governance structures
• Strengthening women’s involvement in decision-
making and positioning them as agents of
change
Resilient Pathways From
PHE Programs
• Cooley and Kohl’s (2006) scaling up framework:
– Expansion = an approach is scaled up by increasing
scope of operations of organization that originally
developed and piloted it
– Replication = increasing use of particular process,
technology or model of service delivery by getting
others, including the public sector, to take up and
implement the model.
– Collaboration = formal partnerships and strategic
alliances
How Does this Relate to Scaling Up?
• Cooley and Kohl’s 5 dimensions of extension:
1. Geographic coverage (extending to new locations)
2. Breadth of coverage (extending to more people in
the currently served categories and localities)
3. Depth of services (extending additional services to
current clients)
4. Client type (extending to new categories of clients)
5. Problem definition (extending current methods to
new problems)
What is Expanding Out?
• There is enough of a shared basis conceptually
and in terms of points of intervention for
resilience approaches and PHE to make the
case for scaling up and expanding out PHE as a
resiliency approach
1st Key Point:
PHE and Resiliency: A Shared Basis
• PHE can make a contribution to filling the
critiques about resiliency approaches
2nd Key Point:
PHE Can Help Fill Resiliency Gaps
• Poor treatment of power, politics and “the social”
– Power to build/reduce resilience
– How do groups use framing to further their ends?
– Gender dynamics
• Resilience is incremental
– Doesn’t consider step changes/transformational
• Lack of normativity
– Direction or goal
– Whose vision of resilience, for whom?
– Winners or losers?
– Are there trade offs across scales/systems, sectors
Resilience Critique
• The PHE field can learn about M&E approaches
from the resiliency field
3d Key Point:
Resiliency Can Build PHE
Community Based-Resilience Assessment (CoBRA)
Baseline Situation Time Repeat Monitoring
T0 – Normal Period
% households
resilience
Cap
ital
an
d
cap
acit
y Human
Natural
Financial
Social
Physical
T1 – Normal Period
% households
resilience
Cap
ital
an
d
cap
acit
y Human
Natural
Financial
Social
Physical
T0 – Crisis Period
% households
resilience
Cap
ital
an
d
cap
acit
y Human
Natural
Financial
Social
Physical
T1 – Crisis Period
% households
resilience
Cap
ital
an
d
cap
acit
y Human
Natural
Financial
Social
Physical
Bounce back
better
Bounce back
Recover but
worse than
before
Collapse
Stress and shocks
Household adaptation
and change
Direct interventions,
services, support
External policy and
political context
Source: UNDP, “Community-Based Resilience Assessment (CoBRA) Conceptual
Framework and Methodology” (April 2013)
Community Ranking and Scoring
Source: UNDP, “Community-Based Resilience Assessment (CoBRA) Conceptual
Framework and Methodology” (April 2013)
0
100
200
300
400 Social
Financial Natural
Physical Human
Community
Ranking
Human Physical
Financial
Social
Natural
% Current
% Crisis
100%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1. Framing PHE as a resiliency strategy could help
scale up and expand out the PHE approach and
help advance resiliency approaches of major
donors and actors such as DFID and USAID
2. Positioning PHE within the resilience frame can
also help advance the resiliency field and make
a positive contribution to that field
3. Looking at approaches to key program
monitoring mechanisms from other cross
sectoral approaches such as resiliency can help
advance and inform PHE
Implications
1. Draw parallels between different
resiliency systems and PHE to position PHE as
a resiliency strategy
1. Explore the ways that PHE programs help deal
with issues that resiliency frameworks address
or miss such as gender and social/power
dimensions or areas that both programs miss
such as conflict
2. Position PHE as having co-benefits in the
resiliency and sustainability spheres
Recommendations